Summary

  • The 2022 directors' commitment required an attempt at conciliation before a final arbitration route; the version approved in November 2025 names arbitration directly.
  • A new precedence clause makes LACNIC's bylaws and other approved normative documents prevail over the agreement when their terms conflict. Board minutes record an intention to obtain signatures from all current directors in December.

The missing stop

An institutional dispute often turns on a verb. The directors' agreement approved in June 2022 said the parties would seek to resolve contract differences through conciliation at the Uruguay Chamber of Commerce centre. If that failed, three arbitrators would decide. It preserved internal Board procedures and a possible appeal to the Members' Assembly.

The revised commitment, DIR-POL-002.04, modified on 4 November 2025, still chooses Uruguayan law and three arbitrators under that centre's rules. Its section 9 now goes straight from a contractual difference to definitive arbitration. The mandatory conciliation attempt no longer appears in the document. That is the exact change. It says nothing about whether parties could voluntarily settle, or whether any dispute has actually reached a tribunal.

The edit affects people who govern the address registry, rather than a routine customer complaint. The agreement binds an elected director to diligence, confidentiality, loyalty, careful use of resources and conduct when representing LACNIC. It bars passing privileged information to an employer or client; its confidentiality term can run up to ten years after a director leaves, and indefinitely for personal data. Such obligations make the dispute route more than decorative legal furniture. If an accusation or enforcement decision ever arises, the route will determine where a director and the institution contest what the commitment means.

Which document wins

The revision adds a separate section 8. If the commitment clashes with LACNIC's bylaws, regulations, ethics code, community conduct code or another normative document approved by the Board or Assembly, those instruments prevail. A director's signature therefore cannot quietly turn a lower-ranking agreement into a superior source of authority. The clause also makes the Board's own rulemaking important: the agreement asks directors to follow procedures and rules established during their term, while giving those instruments priority in a conflict.

The 4 November Board minutes explain the rollout. The proposed approach was to apply the text as positions renewed. One director suggested having everyone sign the update at the December meeting instead. The others agreed, and the Board unanimously approved the document. The minutes record a decision and an intention. They do not contain the signed copies or a later compliance count.

One limit matters. The new arbitration paragraph says internal LACNIC procedures and an eventual appeal to the Members' Assembly remain available when applicable. Calling this an abolition of member appeal would reverse the text. The narrower point is sharper: a preliminary step expressly written into the old contractual dispute path disappeared, while the instrument hierarchy was made explicit.